Adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and postpartum women in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: By the fact that pregnant and postpartum women are currently using COVID-19 vaccines, ensure their safety is critical. So, more safety evidence is crucial to include this new technology to their vaccine's calendar and to develop public policies regarding the support and training of Health Care Personnel. This study aims to describe the adverse events (AE) of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and postpartum women in the early stage of vaccination campaign in Brazil. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study using data from the Brazilian surveillance information system to characterize the AE of COVID-19 vaccines (Sinovac/Butantan, Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Janssen) in Brazilian pregnant and postpartum women from April to August 2021. Frequency and incidence rate of AE for COVID-19 vaccines were assessed. RESULTS: 3,333 AE following immunization were reported for the study population. AE incidence was 309.4/100,000 doses (95% CI 297.23, 321.51). Within the vaccines available, Sinovac/Butantan had the lowest incidence (74.08/100,000 doses; 95% CI 63.47, 84.69). Systemic events were the most frequent notified (82.07%), followed by local (11.93%) and maternal (4.74%), being most of them classified as non-severe (90.65%). CONCLUSION: Our results corroborate the recommendation of vaccination for these groups. Even though, further studies appraising a longer observation time are still needed to provide a broader safety aspect for the vaccines currently under use for this population.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries. METHODS: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. CONCLUSIONS: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.